The dark side of American exceptionalism

Dick Cheney has chosen to defend his legacy of torture and abuse, but America as a whole must learn the lessons of this ugly chapter in its history, writes Tim Mayfield.

'American exceptionalism' has traditionally referred to the special character of the United States as a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty.

Nevertheless, the damning Senate report on the use of torture by the CIA exposes the darker side of this grand theory.

Indeed, the report confirms what many of us had long suspected, namely, that in the post 9/11 years the ends did come to justify the means in the minds of those that mattered amongst the American political elite.

Moreover, the CIA became a willing and enthusiastic weapon of choice in this global 'War on Terror'.

In seeking to understand the collective mentality that allowed such abuses to occur, it is instructive to note that no other Western liberal democracy has an organisation that matches the CIA in the scope of its powers or the extent of its resourcing. Nor do equivalent intelligence agencies have a remit that is so expansive and therefore so ill-defined.

The evolution of the CIA into such a multi-faceted and prominent branch of the US government is, I would argue, a direct result of the dark side of American exceptionalism. Likewise, the decision by the Second Bush Administration to use the agency to carry out widespread torture and human rights abuses represents the worst instincts in US foreign policy.

Even now, there must be doubt as to how much the lessons of this ugly chapter in US history have been taken on board.

It is perhaps predictable that key Republicans, including former vice-president Dick Cheney, have chosen to defend this legacy of torture and abuse - it occurred, after all, at their instigation. However, the lack of introspection, remorse, or even equivocation that has been evident on the part of some current Republican Party leaders, including Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, raises the question of whether it could all happen again.

Despite President Obama's decision to end the 'enhanced interrogation' program in 2009, there has been no fundamental overhaul of the legislative framework governing the agency or curtailment of its extraordinary reach.

We must also question how much cultural change has been enacted inside the CIA. For example, the apparent attitude of impunity reflected in the report was also evident in the recent revelation that agency officers had improperly spied upon Senate investigators probing the allegations of torture.

In the famous words of Edmund Burke, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

The Bush administration apparently learned nothing from the overreach that was evident in the 1980s through scandals such as the Iran-Contra Affair, nor did President Reagan learn from past outrages such as the CIA-instigated coup in which the democratically elected government of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown in 1953.

Why then would future US governments prove any more adept at incorporating the hard-bitten lessons of the failed experiment with torture that occurred in the shadow of 9/11?

Of course, we should not overlook the fact that the democratic principles of transparency and accountability have ultimately shed light on this dirty corner of America's foreign policy edifice. We must also contextualise this episode within the broad sweep of history, in which the US remains arguably the most benign superpower the world has seen.

Indeed, Washington's capacity for decisive and compelling leadership on the international stage was evident in President Obama's historic climate change deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In this way, the US still has enormous potential to be a force for good in global affairs despite this most recent stain on in its reputation.

However, its ability to shape events beyond its shores will become increasingly constrained as it grapples with the inevitable and inexorable decline in its relative power as compared to the rising giants of China and India.

Thus, Washington's response to this latest Senate report will be symbolic of its broader attitude to the reality of its decreasing power.

If the CIA is allowed to continue to operate in its current unaccountable form then this will reflect the inability of the US to come to terms with its own changing circumstances. If, however, the report creates the impetus for reform of the CIA and the Government's broader intelligence apparatus, then this will be a clear sign that the US is adjusting to the new paradigm.

In this regard, Bill Clinton's remarks, made a decade ago, are prescient:

America has two choices. We can use our great and unprecedented military and economic power to try to stay top dog on the global block in perpetuity. Or we can seek to use that power to create a world in which we are comfortable living when we are no longer top dog on the global block.

We must now wait and see which path America's current political leaders will take.

Tim Mayfield is a freelance writer who has previously worked at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence. He holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Master of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies from the ANU. View his full profile here.

Comments (167)

Comments for this story are closed.

Kevin52:

12 Dec 2014 8:55:36am

I just saw Dick Cheney on the news, justifying himself by basically saying, "We were doing our job".This is the same excuse used by the Nazi guards at Auschwitz.Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes and should be called to account.

D.G.:

12 Dec 2014 11:03:07am

If someone committed war crimes, that person is a war criminal. Someone who authorised the perpetration of war crimes is a war criminal. Dick Cheney has personally admitted to authorising what we know are war criminals. He is a war criminal. It's a fact. That the current administration is too spineless to see him prosecuted for the war crimes we know he committed is neither here nor there.

graazt:

Whitey:

12 Dec 2014 6:29:53pm

Cheney did not admit to authorizing war crimes. He says that a few people may have overstepped the boundaries, but that enhanced interrogation saved lives, and that the report was a political beat up. No idea if he is telling the truth, but he at no time admitted that he authorized illegal activity.

AGB:

12 Dec 2014 9:43:21am

I think Cheney's simply pointing out the partisan nature of Feinstein report. He also believed it failed to take expert opinion into account.

It's too easy to judge the Bush admin harshly in the wake of 9/11. The trick is to keep the context in mind: not only was the US rocked by the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the intelligence at the time suggested the next attack could involve a chemical, biological or dirty nuclear weapon.

The threat has abated and the pendulum has swung back away from the security fixation. Objectively, the security agencies, Congress and the media were too deferential to Bush et al in the wake of 9/11. Some reflection is warranted. But also keep in mind that war has always required tough, decisive action. The CIA did what it had to do.

peter6172:

12 Dec 2014 11:03:13am

You think they haven't already. Just because the information isn't out for public view doesn't mean they don't know; they simply decline to disclose the information (yes even to the President). What value is a trial show to the CIA. Its about knowledge which is power. Torture does give them knowledge and they aren't about to share it until its to their advantage.I thnk may here need to open their eyes to the real world, not the one they think they are livin in.

AGB:

12 Dec 2014 2:32:18pm

Dove,

Defense, the CIA and FBI managed to prevent another major attack on US soil.

Perhaps this is the measure you should use to judge the success or otherwise of CIA methods.

Whether the CIA had to resort to enhanced interrogation is at best a mute point. Just because the Feinstein report says it was ineffective, doesn't make it so. Plenty of experts argue the very opposite.

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 3:42:24pm

The CIA can claim that it has saved us all from calamity as long as they get funding increases.

Indeed, the effectiveness of torture and murder is not the point. If you have the right person, perhaps it is. Less so when you have the wrong person. But as the Americans were unable, unwilling or uncaring enough to differentiate, it would seem that everyone had to bend over for the rubber hose

AGB:

12 Dec 2014 4:48:30pm

Dove,

Hate to get bogged down in an abstract philosophical discussion, but perhaps this is where utilitarianism fits in: the morally right decision is one that benefits the most number of people. In this context, an occasion where enhanced interrogation techniques are applied to an innocent person are ultimately offset by the benefits the rest of us derive from the useful information obtained from bona-fide bad guys.

Of course this doesn't work if you believe the rights of all individuals are inviolable.

Gary:

12 Dec 2014 5:41:42pm

I guess it all depends on whether you think the end justifies the means. Maybe you can argue that in this particular case it does - but then other people start arguing that it justifies other ends ... and eventually it becomes the norm.

The US might say it's ok to unilaterally invade Iraq because Saddam is bad; he has WMD; he supports Hamas etc. But what happens if China or Russia start doing the same thing?

D.G.:

12 Dec 2014 10:04:49am

No, the CIA didn't do what it had to do. The CIA was run by incompetents who were ideologically committed to using torture, and who compromised America's intelligence capability by outsourcing its interrogation program to contractor goons with no specialist training or expertise, rather than using skilled and experienced interrogators who would have used more effective interrogation methods that would also have had the benefit of not being illegal, grossly immoral, and fantastic propaganda for America's enemies.

I think I think:

GJA:

12 Dec 2014 10:41:59am

The CIA did what it was allowed to do, but only by misleading Congress. Cheney wasn't pointing out the partisan nature of anything other than the practices he was party to. He admits to not even having read the report.

"Context" does not provide a legal justification for torture. "Tough, decisive action" does not include illegal acts in a country that prides itself, apparently delusionally, on the rule of law.

Mitor the Bold:

12 Dec 2014 11:09:04am

"It's too easy to judge the Bush admin harshly in the wake of 9/11"

In that case is it too easy to judge terrorists in the wake of their grievances? Shouldn't we instead draw a line in the sand about we will or will not do whatever the circumstances? Should we not define our values not by the circumstances but by our moral code?

It's too easy to forgive ourselves by referring to some event or other while dismissing those who feel the same kinds of injustice, whether or not we consider their feelings valid or not. They don't recognise our grievances either. Surely what should set us apart is our values, otherwise we're all barbarians and may the most barbaric win.

AGB:

12 Dec 2014 11:45:01am

You're right Mitor, certain behaviors should be out-of-bounds, regards of circumstances.

Though, semantics aside, it's important to first define what those behaviors are.Enhanced interrogation (read: sleep deprivation, stress positions, even water-boarding) is hardly comparable with flying airliners into buildings.

You speak of moral codes, but every adult knows such things are never black-and-white. We can all point to exceptions.

Which leads me back to my original point: It's easy for Feinstein (and most of the posters here) to point fingers from the sidelines and claim the moral high-ground. She and you weren't keeping watch. She and you didn't have to wear the fallout of another attack. She and you didn't have to look families in eye and take responsibility.

AJC:

12 Dec 2014 1:01:16pm

One horror does not reduce the evil of doing another horror on a revenge kick to satisfy a misplaced sense of "justice". Why do you attempt to downplay and mislead about the acts of torture undertaken? Sleep deprivation for days, stress positions which can kill, waterboarding dozens, even hundreds of times, electrical current applied to genitals, brutal bashings, all of these are part of a regime of torture that is quite recognisable as such. Torture acts like these are much like those which Germans and Japanese were executed for performing.

Worst of all, torture does not obtain any valid result as far as seeking information is concerned. It does not have that goal, regardless of the pretence. Torture is pure cruelty.

AJC:

12 Dec 2014 1:22:07pm

The CIA could show no evidence that torture of so many people prevented any attacks at all. The torture obviously wasn't for the goal of gaining valid information, but for the purpose of supporting fictional narratives which the policy makers desired.

Zing:

"In that case is it too easy to judge terrorists in the wake of their grievances?"

We judge terrorists for a simple reason: They seek to harm us and dictate our foreign policy. We take whatever action is needed to prevent this threat or eliminate it entirely.

If the western world had different moral code, it wouldn't make us any more likely to the actions of terrorists against us. Nor would it make us any less likely to resort to atrocities, if such atrocities ever become necessary for national survival.

pmg:

12 Dec 2014 5:36:36pm

"They seek to harm us and dictate our foreign policy.". There are plenty of countries(any country in Latin America that does not do their bidding for starters) who can and do argue that this is precisely what the US does.Given it's contempt for international law it is clear that the US is the world's most rabid outlaw state. The question in when will the world heed the lessons of WWII and stop appeasing them?

dinkumfair:

12 Dec 2014 9:02:22am

The revelations about torture at Guantanamo Bay remind us once again that whistle blowers, no matter how they obtained their information, should have over-arching protection afforded to them by the constitution of their country. It is a basic premise of democracy that justice is afforded to all, even if the government doesn't like it. In fact, especially if the government doesn't like it.

Governments in democracies are supposed to serve the people, not oppress them. When a government breaks the law, not only should the government itself be accountable, the individuals who made the decisions that led to the crimes that were committed should be held to account, no matter how high their office.

There are no circumstances where it is OK to use torture. Those carrying out these crimes are not patriots. They are criminals and should be processed as such, without prejudice or favour. The politicians who facilitated the crimes should also have to answer for them, just as the war criminals of Europe did after WWII.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 9:24:27am

'There are no circumstances where it is OK to use torture.'

That's easy to say when you have no responsibility for protecting people. I am not condoning the CIA. Merely pointing out it is not a simple issue. Firstly, what is torture ?. Would interrogating a suspect for 24 hours straight be torture ?. Keeping someone naked to humilate them, is that torture ?.

War is a nasty business and the USA thought of themselves as at war. The Brits used some nasty techniques in WW2, was that justified to stop Hitler ?. Prior to D-Day many thousands of French civilians were killed by bombs to enhance the chance of success. Was that justified, or a war crime ?. On D-Day itself it at least some Allied soldiers shot Germans who had surrended. Were they criminals ?. Probably yes, but how would you punish them ?.

Again I am not defending the CIA. But before we cast judgement on others, we need consider the context, and motivations. Platitudees like 'torture is always wrong', 'killing civilians is always wrong', 'everyone deserves justice' are easy to say when you are safe and your protection is reliant on others.

Steve:

12 Dec 2014 9:38:56am

I had this same argument with my aunt over this issue. I said America no longer has any right to call out any country on human rights abuses, any notion of the moral high ground is well and truly evaporated in light of this. And that is ignoring American foreign policy of the last 60 years.

Her response? "Well, at least they weren't cutting off heads."

You're not against torture per se. It's how and why and who and when we torture that really matter.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 10:01:41am

So instead of considering the questions in my post you just call me disgusting. Fair enough, but lazy thinking. I am merely pointing out it is not a simple issue. In this case it may be, but I'm talking about the broader context.

Steve:

12 Dec 2014 10:29:14am

I considered your questions. I considered them a veiled attempt to justify what is unjustifiable.

I don't understand how we (the royal we, the species) has this completely false sense of what we are. We think that we are wise, that we are intelligent and can claim some kind of moral superiority; when we are really just semi-savage beasts with baseball caps and sub-machine guns. We are manipulated to accept all manner of horrors, done in the name of some intangible greater good.

It's simply a choice. I choose to reject violence by anyone against anyone. It is never ok, never justifiable. And if everyone else thought along the same lines, imagine the world we would live in.

And for the record, I called this pervading attitude of "torture is ok if A, B and C criteria is met" disgusting. If you felt it personal, then maybe you should consider why.

whogoesthere:

So if someone was attacking you, you wouldn't defend yourself ?. Come on, it's really not that simple. I too wish for a world where there was no violence, But I can't see it happening.

As for '"torture is ok if A, B and C criteria is met" disgusting." I have said in another post that if someone I loved was in danger I might use violence to protect them. And if I did I would deserve punishment. But given what I believe I would do, how can I cast moral judgement on others ?.

Crisplion:

"...if someone I loved was in danger I might use violence to protect them. And if I did I would deserve punishment. But given what I believe I would do, how can I cast moral judgement on others ?"

In saying that you would deserve punishment you are making a moral judgement about your own use of violence, which you then go on to say you don't feel you can make about the use of violence by others. This seems a little contradictory.

But I think that what you're really missing is the difference between the use of violence by an individual in the heat of a moment, and the systematic, arbitrary use of violence by the state. The latter, unless it is done under the strict rule of law, all too often leads to totalitarianism and political repression. Citizens acting outside the law is criminal. The state acting outside the law is tyranny.

I for one would much rather take a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack than to cede to the state the right to imprison people without due process, or to torture them. People have taken much greater risks to defend liberty in the past.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 12:56:14pm

I am distinguishing between what I see as 'moral' and what is legal. For example, smoking marijuana is illegal I don't see that as morally wrong. In some countries punishing women for being raped is legal, I do see that as morally wrong.

I agree, the State should not be above it's own laws. And though you no doubt truly believe 'I for one would much rather take a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack than to cede to the state the right to imprison people without due process, or to torture them', would you still believe it if the risk became much, much greater ?. And where you 'draw the line' will be different to where others 'draw the line'.

As with most things what is absolutley wrong and absolutely right is easy. It's the grey areas that are difficult

Crisplion:

12 Dec 2014 3:00:24pm

"...where you 'draw the line' will be different to where others 'draw the line'."

That might be true, but isn't that why we have laws in the first place? Like you, I distinguish between what is legal and what is moral, and yes, it gets complicated. Like you I don't think that using drugs is immoral, and consequently, neither do I think it ought to be illegal. Others would have a different view.

My point about torture is that, when perpetrated by a state like the U.S., it corrodes the very values that they claim to be defending. It's akin to the cliche from the Vietnam war about 'destroying the village to save it'. I think that if we get into arguing for situations in which it might be morally permissible for the state to break people with pain and humiliation, we're already on the slope to totalitarianism.

Yes, you can presumably dream up a hypothetical situation in which it might seem as if it's the only rational option. But why would you want to do that? What we're talking about here is a nation with a value base to know better, allowing its agencies to damage people irreparably when they knew that most of them were innocent, for political reasons. Having uncovered this abominable behaviour, they're not even prepared to prosecute the perpetrators. There's no 'grey area' here. It's just plain criminal, and as I said before, it's also tyranny.

xstephen:

12 Dec 2014 1:44:01pm

I think you mistaken in what we are. We are at the core animals fighting for existence like any other. Nature is cruel with no concept of a humane death. Our civilisation and education is what lifts us but plenty of examples of where we've gone savage. Indeed your own choices are only possible because others are prepared to protect your rights to those choices.

Crisplion:

12 Dec 2014 3:37:13pm

xstephen,

I know exactly what we are: We are animals and we are subject to all of the same impulses as animals. But we are also rational beings with the capacity to moderate those impulses and to think morally. Unless we want to sink into the pit of savagery, we'd do well to promote that capacity all we can. The "nature is cruel" argument can be used to justify rape and murder. I therefore reject it.

Dave:

12 Dec 2014 10:39:29am

"I said America no longer has any right to call out any country on human rights abuses"

You seem to have presumed that America has ever not been a case of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. Why would you take seriously the human rights record of a country which denied basic civil rights to many within Barack Obama's lifetime, which used the cold war to justify all sorts of extreme human rights abuses around the world or which went to war in Iraq to boost Cheney's stock holdings?

Your aunt is right. America has always been pretty brutal, at least it's less so now, it's the best we can hope for. If you seriously believe America is the home of the free and the bastion of great human rights that's just naivity.

I think I think:

Caffettierra Moka:

12 Dec 2014 9:42:20am

Putting them on a secret flight to Egypt and handing them over for 'interrogation' does not keep your hands clean. If those people were actual prisoners of war, then there are protections. That the USA went out of its way to keep the sites off US shore, get dodgy legal advice and secretly shuttle people from country to country is the proof that the entire program was illegal, and they knew it.

And don't start on about what constitutes 'torture' or 'abuse'. You seem to have a sheet of handy 'ambiguations' about what is a war-crime. At the end of WW2 the Allies prosecuted and executed people for organising and carrying out reprisals against prisoners and civilians. At that time we were not fighting an 'enemy' of our own making using techniques taught to them by the US itself to defeat superpowers. We were up against nations that matched us in power and intent. And yet we managed to use law effectively to identify and prosecute without the indiscriminate methods that the US has been using this century.

Caffettierra Moka:

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 9:45:31am

There's a pretty easy test to determine whether something is torture or not.

Let's say you're scooped up by an intelligence agency. Routine stop and search, you share a particular name, someone suggested you might know something. Whatever. At what point would you say you were being tortured? At the beating up stage? The stress position? The starvation and freezing bit? I'll let you decide.

How about another test. Which of these interrogation techniques do you think isn't torture and you'd like to see used by our state police forces? Posing naked for Facebook? The rectal re-hydration?

You seem to be confused between battlefield interrogations and a systematic, large scale, enduring programming where the guilt of the prisoner was determined by their mere presence. Anyone who knew nothing were determined to be well trained enemies, and the efforts were re-doubled. Nice

Mulky:

12 Dec 2014 9:53:16am

Ideals of freedom, liberty and individual rights are only important if we apply them in our darkest hour. Any ideal that is set aside for expedience is worthless.

How you treat your lessees and enemies defines who you are not them. If we torture for any reason then we as a society do not respect individual human rights. Citizens of countries involved in these acts need to speak up and say that what has been done in my name is not okay and is not part of the society I want. Those who failed to uphold the rights of those within their care from the security guard right up to the minister in charge should appear before the international courts. There is no excuse.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 10:18:28am

Idealistically I agree with you. I am just trying to say that in the real world it's not that simple. And to pretend it is is taking the easy way out. If your job is protect civilians, under some circumstances the line between right and wrong can be very blurry. If, in this case, if people should be put on trial, so be it. But making moral judgements of others from the safety of our comfy lives, when we will never be in their position, is something I will not do.

If someone I loved was in danger, and I thought beating someone up who had taken them might get me information that would save them., I might just do it. And I agree I would deserve to be punished for it.Society cannot function unless we obey the rule of law. But as I think I would do it, I feel no moral superiority on the issue.

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 10:38:52am

Your scenario of a crime of passion is one thing, but the CIA agents (and their subcontractors) didn't know their victims. Their victims hadn't killed or kidnapped their children. Their victims didn't have a ticking nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in Gotham City. By simple virtue of being detained they were assumed to be guilty and of value. The US went to work with the tin snips on everyone. Everyone was beaten, violated, starved, frozen, boiled, had mock executions as a warm up to the interrogation. This warm up lasted from weeks to months. If you had nothing to tell, it was assumed you were highly trained and therefore even more valuable and they redoubled their efforts.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 11:43:50am

So a crime of passion, though not right, is at least understandable. That is my point. So, as I said, if these people have broken the law they should be put on trial. But what they did, in context, might be understandable. And in their position can any of us be absolutely sure none of us would not do the same. So, by all means apply the law. But when we say we are better than them, that we would never, ever do anything like that, I think we are being disengenuous.

It goes the other way too. I don't hate the man who chopped the haeds off aid workers and reporters. I hope he is caught, and thrown in jail for the rest of his life. But, just maybe, if my life had been different, I might be like him. So how can I honestly say I am 'better' than him ?.

Comrade:

12 Dec 2014 3:02:17pm

who,

" making moral judgements of others from the safety of our comfy lives, when we will never be in their position, is something I will not do."

As a member of a democracy which may choose to engage in torture, or enhanced interrogation, judgment is a requirement of citizenship, and therefore unavoidable. The "refusal" to judge is a decision to endorse the "procedures" as acceptable practice.

If you think that torture was acceptable given the context, well that's up to you, but at least be honest about it.

whogoesthere:

12 Dec 2014 5:10:11pm

I said I wouldn't make a moral judgement, not a legal one. If laws have been broken then yes, due process should be followed. If the torture was acceptable given the context, I would say probably not, but as I don't know all the facts, that's all I can say.

Comrade:

12 Dec 2014 6:46:50pm

who,

As governments make laws, and are elected, the moral decision precedes the legal one. As a citizen, a judgement must be made in order to elect a government which will determine the legality of the action through the legislation it enacts. Thus a refusal to judge is tantamount to endorsement of the legalisation of torture.

JoeBloggs:

"Ideals of freedom, liberty and individual rights are only important if we apply them in our darkest hour."

Those things are applicable to the citizens of that nation... they don't apply (and never have) to members of other nations that seek to harm the interests of the USA etc.

Reality....

If you want to get rid of torture etc then the entire human civilisation equation must be altered so that there is no reason for geopolitical activities between nations that seem them competing over resources, the only viable solution is a single representative government that represents all of humanity equally.

But..... I bet you anything that you personally will not agree to this concept as it will mean you will personally lose your life of privilege as the worlds resources are more equitably distributed to the billions of other humans who live in comparative poverty.....

Again, not sure (although I'm inclined to say yes). How about being stripped naked, and then standing with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling. I'm comfortable calling that torture, aren't you?

whogoesthere:

Terry:

12 Dec 2014 9:34:39am

What revelations about torture at Guantanomo Bay?

I don't recall any mention of that prison in the report.

The only occupant of Guatanamo I know much of came out looking far more fit healthy than when he went. Physically at least. Mentally - hard to say. Recent behaviour could indicate deep seated problems, but more likely just attention seeking.

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 9:50:12am

What are saying Terry? A well nourished holiday camp in Cuba was the tonic for these men? Have you honesty read nothing of the doctors reports, of the ex-guards, or the Red Cross and Amnesty observers?

You are, as an individual, a staunch ally of the USA. Good for you, aint no crime. Just don't let that blind you to actions that have taken place. The most difficult thing to imagine are all the people who were released, who knew nothing, who were innocent, and the torture that they endured. It is difficult to imagine being in their shoes. To make light of what went on is a self defence mechanism

Dove:

Monty B:

12 Dec 2014 11:09:13am

With all due respect to some of the Australians who were detained and mistreated, they don`t seen the criminal master mind types to me. Most were lower level offenders subjected to torture just in case they knew something bigger, then offered the option of confessing so they could go home. I prefer we acted like the good guys with the rule of law.

JoeBloggs:

12 Dec 2014 10:03:05am

you suggest that "Governments in democracies are supposed to serve the people, not oppress them"

ahhhh.... last time I looked governments in democracies are supposed to serve the people of the country they represent.... not people from other nations that seek to bring harm to the interests of the country and its people.

You also suggest that people should be treated in the same way as they were at the end of WW2, ....if you care to learn about the topic you will find that the torturers that worked for the British, USA, France etc received promotions, accolades, medals, awards and citations for their work in obtaining information to assist the activities of the intelligence agencies. As such should they new batch of tortures be treated in the same way?

Jungle Boy:

It's the job of a government to "serve the people" & to protect the "interests of the country", irrespective of whether the government is democratic or not.

In the case of the United States, it declared, "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights".

You will note this says, "all" men, and is in no way limited to US citizens.

Therefore if it's not OK to commit certain acts against US citizens (e.g. torture, detention without trial, etc.), then it's not OK to commit those acts against foreigners.

"seek to bring harm"

You fall to the same trap as the Bush administration. You assume that the persons being detained are about to commit a crime (or know something about it). You assume that the methods used to select detainees are faultless.

Bev:

12 Dec 2014 9:06:09am

The US has more than an external dark side it also has an internal dark side in it's prison system. The privately run prison systems have a shocking record of abusing rights. There are 400,000 rapes in their prison systems every year a fact now recognized by the FBI and Congress who are attempting to get the states to clean up their acts but there is reluctance. Further punishment by solitary confinement is wide spread. In the worst cases this can last up to 6 months. The cells art tiny and have no windows keeping the prisoner in darkness 24 hours a day. They are fed at different times during the day leading to total disorientation. Many prisoners apparently break down and become mentally ill. Add to this the fact that many of their police forces are more like a para military force and the land of the free isn't so free anymore.

JoeBloggs:

Peter of Melbourne:

12 Dec 2014 12:41:45pm

joe you absolutely correct.

practically all of our industries have moved offshore to 3rd world labour and condition countries... and now we have the morons who are directly responsible for it happening over the past 40 years with their implementation of self interested policies sniping at each other over "unemployment" figures.

all of those who head the vested interest political parties in this nation need to be publicly flogged just for a start for their complete and utter incompetence to the australian people

just dont forget to train your kids up in that most needed skill of their futures, enunciation: "would you like fries with that?"

Peter of Melbourne:

Viking:

12 Dec 2014 12:49:44pm

I did a quick poll around the office a while back and asked what people thought of unauthorized boat-type immigration if it meant we got cheap house cleaners, building labourers, etc like in the US. Everyone thougth it was a great idea.Go figure...

Helvi:

Peter of Melbourne:

12 Dec 2014 12:36:27pm

well when we have genuine asylum seekers rocking up by boat instead of countryshoppers and tamil terrorists fleeing justice then we will accept them... it hasnt happened yet and i doubt it will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

Peter of Melbourne:

Bede:

12 Dec 2014 9:10:25am

The fundamental problem is that americans (and their administrations) believe that an american life is worth more than the life of anyone else on the planet. When they use this yardstick to judge their own actions, they can justify anything.

Nova4avr:

12 Dec 2014 9:11:06am

Dick Cheney could probably be best described as a psychopath or a sociopath. His company, Halliburton made billions of dollars from the US Govt. during the Iraq war. He is undoubtedly a very dangerous man that will go to any lengths to get what he wants.The trio of Cheney, Rumsfeld & George W Bush were quite aware of what the CIA were doing with torture, in fact they probably directed it to occur.It could also be said that Blair & Howard were complicit in it as well, as they did nothing to stop it.It was a very bad era & we are paying for that disaster in Iraq & Syria right now with the uprising of ISIL.The whole lot of them should be charged with war crimes in the International Courts.

Shiela R.:

12 Dec 2014 9:11:14am

The scumbags they "tortured" deserved it 100%. Those involved in the murder of 3,000 civilians should be shown no mercy--the restraint shown by the CIA was amazing. They still have all their toes and fingers, don't they?

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 9:35:38am

I think the issue, Heinrich, is that nearly everyone tortured has been released, Allowed to go home. Not enough evidence, even after the red hot pokers and the pliers, to conduct a show trial. Nearly everyone, even by the standards of the Americans, were innocent.

The trouble with 911 is that is was a suicide attack. That means that nearly everyone involved died. How many other people knew? Who were they? Where were they? Without this information the US decided to wield both ends of the rubber hose with gusto and on anyone who came their way. Torturing the guilty is punishment. What do you call torturing the innocent?

Terry:

12 Dec 2014 10:32:45am

I missed the bit about the "red hot pokers and pliers" in the report.

I thought the "torture" was mainly sleep deprivation and enforced standing, with one case of an enema and a very limited number of waterboarding events. Plus of course, louf music. All at least 10 years ago.

Of course "torture" is much better: it does carry connotations of pulling off finger nails etc, but there was and is no evidence of any such behaviour.

peter6172:

12 Dec 2014 11:09:59am

People, torture is tortue. It may offend your morals but its the only way to get information out of people like those in the camp.All information provided is tested for validity and lies are punished more harshly; More truth comes form torture than lies; unfortunately the report to congress was written by someone trying to shut off tortue as a tactic so only those facts that suppoprted their case get reported.Don't let truth get in the way of a just cause....

A Phibes:

12 Dec 2014 1:12:55pm

" More truth comes form torture than lies" What utter ill-informed BS. Even the CIA themselves acknowledge that most information derived through their torture regime is false and useless, because most of the people tortured were innocent. But don't let your smug ignorance get in the way of the facts.

Dewy:

12 Dec 2014 11:12:08am

what does "at least 10 years ago" have to do with anything?

For mine, torture is any treatment designed specifically to attack or erode human dignity. It is punitive and serves no other purpose. It damages everyone connected to it and it renders any fine words about democracy, liberty and human rights hollow.

Comrade:

12 Dec 2014 3:34:02pm

Terry,

Its called torture, because that's what it was. At a "black site" prison the report called COBALT an otherwise healthy detainee who was being held mostly nude and chained to a concrete floor died at the facility from what is believed to have been hypothermia.

Torture leading to DEATH.

Just how bad does it have to get in your mind before you think its ok to call it torture?

Kerrie:

12 Dec 2014 9:38:03am

Scumbags? What about the principle of innocent until proven guilty? A large minority were innocent of having any knowledge much less actually being involved. Torture doesn't work, but if it did would you be happy for the police to use it on witnesses and suspects as the first and only method to extract information?Finally, in Australia and elsewhere there are recurring claims of physical and sexual assaults in the armed forces. The idea is that this identifies people who can't cope with torture and those who are good at torturing others. If this is our goal then perhaps we should stop feeling shame and disgust when new abuse scandals occur. For my part I don't want any armed serviceman to assault or be assaulted during training and I don't want them to torture people.

Steve:

12 Dec 2014 9:43:48am

It's pretty obvious that most of the "terrorists" rounded up in Afghanistan had zero involvement in 9/11. I would suggest most of the planning undertaken would have been conducted by the 19 people who allegedly carried out the attack. But round up anyone brown, and go to town on them in the name of "freedom" and "justice" eh Shiela?

I am just.....sad at how many people are actively supporting this. How can anyone claim to be against IS and all the stupid nonsense they carry on with then and then defend torturing people. It's cognitive dissonance of the highest order.

Snake:

Wun Farlung:

12 Dec 2014 9:21:15am

What I find exceptional is Cheney defend the indefensible by saying that the torture helped to gather information is insulting to anyone with a grain of sense in their headsHave any of the so called journalists of Australia asked John Howard for comment

Michael Rogers:

12 Dec 2014 9:24:05am

The CIA acts as it does because it serves a global corporate empire. If Australia's interests were as expansive we may expect from its secret agencies similar nefarious activities such as engineering the overthrow of foreign governments.

The difference would then be in Australia's case, much less chance of these activities coming to light due to its heritage from Britain of the ruling class keeping much more of its doings secret from the untrustworthy masses.

TassieJ:

12 Dec 2014 9:27:06am

It will be interesting to hear how the Australian Government and Opposition react to these revelations, which they were probably well aware of before now. Will they be openly criticising the United Stated at the United Nations, condemning the actions, and calling for them to be held to account in the international justice system? My thoughts are that they will not, except for a few benign words. We will continue to blindly follow the world's largest democracy and accept its obvious faults and failings.

Dazonthecoast:

lilly:

12 Dec 2014 9:33:12am

I'd wager our security agencies aren't without blemish either. You don't get to hear much of course but several incidents come to mind:a) The encounter a small protest group had with security agents when they attempted to enter Swan Island. The treatment they received was over the top to say the least. You might argue that they deserved it but I'd argue that professional security people would act in a more measured fashion.b) The infamous incident at the Sheraton Hotel in 1983 with ASIS agents brandishing firearms at unsuspecting hotel guests and employees. c) A recent report from the Inspect General of Intelligence of an SAS solider pulling a weapon on an ASIS agent whilst on deployment - one wonders what provoked it?d) The use of ASIS to bug the East Timorese cabinet rooms for matters of commerical rather than national interest.

These incidents speak of an agency occupied by hotheads who feel that they are above the law and, aside from investigations by the Inspector General of Intelligence, they essentially are. It would seem quite probable that an unhealthy culture would develop given the circumstances in which they operate and the wide powers that they have.

When organisations (security or otherwise) can operate in total secrecy or with very little oversight, corrupt or unethical behaviour will invariably creep into the culture. It is a matter of good governance that independent checks and balances be placed throughout an organisation to prevent this sort of culture developing.

I'd argue that our security agencies should be subject to their own form of ICAC - an independent legal body with very wide terms of reference whose job it is to seek out corruption and unethical behaviour and recommend prosecutions.

JoeBloggs:

Tim suggests that "'American exceptionalism' has traditionally referred to the special character of the United States as a uniquely free nation based on democratic ideals and personal liberty."

However he overlooks two very important points.

1. That the unique freedoms of the US political system are applicable to the citizens inhabiting the USA, there is no automatic extension to all humans of this planet (and certainly not to those that would seek to harm the interests of the USA).

2. Perhaps most importantly it should be remembered that the concept of 'American exceptionalism' was invented as a key piece of propaganda to entice nice and well raised young boys from the USA to happily go off to other countries to kill and maim other nice and well raised young boys (ie. you are good and the hun is bad).

Also it is very important that people don't get sucked in by the propaganda of 'American exceptionalism' as in reality it merely reinforces pre-existing superiority complexes which do nothing to foster world peace.

Dewy:

12 Dec 2014 11:19:04am

"there is no automatic extension to all humans of this planet "

Really? The US founders said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Monty B:

12 Dec 2014 9:53:12am

There are several youtube examples of `tough guys? attempting to withstand more than a few seconds of water boarding without giving in,- all without success.

When I hear the likes of Cheney disputing whether water boarding is really torture I think the matter is simple. Let him the world, he and/or his cronies, can withstand more than 10 seconds of this treatment. If he cannot, he should pull his head in.

peterottaway:

12 Dec 2014 10:01:29am

I have problems with saying that Georgie Boy and his co-conspirators are guilty of war crimes - they should be tried for crimes against humanity at a broader level.

The CIA officers, contractors and others should be tried for what they are common garden type rapists. kidnappers and murderers amongst other things. I wouldn't dignify them with some sort of claim they are the victims of a perverted or politicized system of justice as the rabid right will paint them if they ever see the insides of a court house.

Peter of Perth:

12 Dec 2014 10:03:01am

How easily and how often many that contribute here show their true selves, and that is simply that they hate the US, as they hate the present PM here. It's very easy to sit comfortably in your arm chair and prattle about how awful the US is and all the other rubbish. So what if some terrorists didn't get what the left thinks is fair treatment, try to remember what the US was reacting to and that was the murder of 3,000 innocent people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve such terrible deaths and also let's not forget the attack on USS Cole which killed many navy personnel and very seriously damaged the ship. When dealing with people who are worse than animals who have no values, except pure hatred of 'infidels' and anyone who doesn't absolutely agree with their twisted views, who cares what methods are used to get whatever information is needed to possibly save thousands more innocent people? Lastly, who is it that is ALWAYS at the head of the queue at the site of any disaster anywhere in the world supplying tons of aid of every sort, people, machinery and the list goes on and on. Ah yes, those terrible yanks.

Zathras:

I think you'll find it's a matter of "hating" what they do - not just for who they are.

There is a difference.

It's not the same as excusing somebody just for who they claim to be and for not what they claim to have done.

A country who has been complicit in the overthrow of several governments - many democratically elected - and bombed many others for their own financial and political interests and whose economy is reliant on constant conflict is not particularly worthy of blind admiration and should be criticised when necessary.

Reinhard:

12 Dec 2014 2:04:22pm

"who cares what methods are used to get whatever information is needed to possibly save thousands more innocent people?"I do, especially since it was determined that such torture techniques don't work and many so-called "enemy combatants" were not combatants at all, they had been falsely accused in order to collect a cash bounty.

Terry:

As I have tried to say several times, but to no avail, the issue is not that the USA is beyond reproach.

The issue is that this is partisan Senate report, published with a political goal in mind: to distract from the inadequacies of the Obama administration.

It has all the validity of a Greens review of the Australian immigration policy. (I'll bet that would contain stories of torture as well).

Why was there no similar surge of rage when the UN report on North Korea's brutality to its own people was released? Justice Kirby detailed horrific cruelty and real torture.

But all the concern is about a few events a decade ago when the US was in turmoil following the murder of 3,000 of its citizens and the authorities, desperate to protect the populations, was panicking to identify the threat.

Sinekal:

12 Dec 2014 10:04:17am

When the US carries out renditions, water boarding and a host of other reprehensible acts it is called "protecting democracy" and the defense of it is strident and raucous. The fact that they use third countries to do so shows a global obscenity that is inexcusable. Equally inexcusable is their willingness to have "collateral damage" (dead innocents) as part of the defense of democracy.

When fanatics murder innocent westerners there is justifiable outrage. It is a far more serious apparently, than dropping bombs and firing rockets from a distance because there may be a terrorist in the gunsight.

Protect our own soil from and on our own soil. Every surviving participant in 9/11 should have received the death penalty without question. The world including followers of Islam could and should have made it happen. Instead we have a global war of denial, lies, hearts and minds rhetoric ( so absurd as to be farcical) and faceless global social engineers.

A high ranking US officer said during the Vietnam conflict.." grab em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow" That is pretty much the prevailing attitude still.

If a helicopter load of soldiers from another country landed in the USA or Australia and assassinated a political leader would we consider that acceptable? Of course not, but lets at least play by the same rules as we expect of others.

Dewy:

harvey:

12 Dec 2014 5:00:01pm

I've recently come around to the opinion that the CIA knew well in advance that 9/11 was going to happen. Numerous scientists and engineers have weighed up the evidence and the evidence firmly points to CIA knowing beforehand and keeping quiet.

And why did Bush put the Saudis onto a flight back home a week after 9/11 ? There are so many friendships between oil barons around the world that we are never told about. The Bush govt was an oil govt. The Bushs had extensive oil connections. Cheney was an executive at Haliburton. And the Bush family and the Saudi royals were and remain very close.

Edward:

12 Dec 2014 10:17:23am

The one thing that interests me about this that doesn't seem to have been talked about is why pharmacological methods weren't used. In the 1940's they were using drugs as a means of gaining information. Given the proven questionability of information gained through torture it perplexes me why other methods weren't used.

Surely there have been advances in psychological and pharmacological techniques over the years to render purely physical methods redundant.

Jungle Boy:

Kassandra:

12 Dec 2014 2:02:12pm

Drugs don't work very well in interrogating hostiles. The main ones used in the 1940s were alkaloids like scopolamine. They work if the victim believes they will work, but these days anyone likely to be a victim of "enhanced" interrogation methods would know that. Also doctors are usually needed for these procedures and few western doctors will participate in such methods.

ram:

12 Dec 2014 10:28:59am

Ever since the USA removed all backing from its currency in the 1960's it has been a nation of myths and lies. Its economy consists of stealing and produces nothing of value to the rest of the world. They are well on their way to total collapse.

Jerry:

12 Dec 2014 10:46:19am

It must be asked whether the US has become a pariah State? It appears that the US selective acceptance of the Geneva conventions and its manipulative stance in the United Nations is indicative of a quest for systematic control of world affairs.

It is noticeable that after WWII the US achieved the sort of military dominance in the world that the Third Reich sought through invasion. It is prepared to assert that dominance through selective invasion and by accepting moral standards with respect to warfare and torture that are highly questionable.

AJC:

Coogara:

12 Dec 2014 1:54:35pm

Dove:

It is a bit like buying insurance. If after 20 years of nothing happening, you feel like you threw away good money. We wont fully know if torture has worked because much of it is secret and unlikely to be conveyed to the committee. We also wont know because the surveillance and the interrogation has directly or indirectly prevented much from happening.

Gerard Jackson:

12 Dec 2014 11:04:12am

A rigged report by a group of discreditable Democrats that gives aid an comfort to sadistic terrorists is welcomed by the America-haters. Surprise, surprise. These are same self-righteous hypocrites who cannot bring themselves to condemn the vile crimes committed, and being committed, by terrorists but who froth at the mouth when captured terrorists are subjected to rough treatment so as to obtain information that would prevent further atrocities.

The left's history has been one of unstinting support for murderous dictators from Lenin to Castro. This fact strips leftists of any moral authority.

DAvid:

12 Dec 2014 11:22:06am

A lot of good comments but your playing the man not the ball,

Dont focus on who focus on how !

Its the Sytems that allow this to happen thats the problem, even now The Head on the CIA is still lying and adding disinformation about the level and extent of toture.... reports not being allowed to be made public etc etc

These are the Lessons for Australia.... Dont trust your National Security Agencies to political oversite.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Often Bad news for the Security agencies, missions gone wrong, inoccents killed, money wasted, torture, citizens rights ignored and abused .... is also bad news for the incumbent Government so BOTH parties went to suppress the truth and hide it under National Security.

Sometime the Truth is that the Government of the days will is not in the interests of people of Australia. Politicians will almost never admit this fact, and is one of the reasons we hold them in such contempt at times.

We must allways tend AWAY from giving security agencies more powers when they ask for them, because they are focused only on our protection, not our freedoms.

JoeBloggs:

12 Dec 2014 2:05:18pm

"Dont focus on who focus on how! Its the Sytems that allow this to happen..."

Correct.

The system at fault being the one that sees our species split along national lines which causes geopolitical competition over key resources that enable a nation state to better provide for its citizens.

If we had a single representative one world government that represented all of humanity equally then there would be no geopolitical competition and no need for the excesses that come with it.

All that needs to happen is for all of humanity to agree to equitably share in the resources available to our species for our common benefit and wellbeing,....

But as that isn't about to happen anytime soon we better get used to the fact that nation states will continue to use all methods, techniques and resources at their disposal to obtain the resources required to best provide for their population (as they have always done).

Blame the system..... and the people that allow the system to continue.

Artful Ddoger:

As my older and wiser sister once said to me' no one is all bad",That applies to nations as it does to individuals. Although some Americans may think otherwise America is no exception.

The problem with American 'exceptionalism" of which Cheney and seemingly many conservatives are exponents of is its inability to see reality.

So torture is OK for the U.S.A but not for its real or perceived enemies. By defending the CIA -Cheney cannot see the reality of weakening any condemnation of say IS torture.

But that deluded mind set extends to other areas of the dark side of 'exceptionalism" So Wall Street bankers get away with massive fraud and causing the GFC and a global disaster but a black man is killed for selling cigarettes on the street,So its OK for friends to seek self determination but not East Ukrainians.So its OK for the West to "intervene" in Iraq- Libya- Syria -creating millions of refugees but not Ok for Russia to intervene in Russian speaking and Russian inclined regions.So its OK to conduct unethical business- the 'end" i.ie profit justifies the means.

If we learned anything from Hitler it must surely be that 'exceptionalism" of any sort is an evil delusion.

The reality is that good people do do evil things-even our very own ''good' people.

JoeBloggs:

12 Dec 2014 2:16:58pm

"So Wall Street bankers get away with massive fraud and causing the GFC and a global disaster but a black man is killed for selling cigarettes on the street" - everyone was happy to see the unrealised, exponential, unrealistic growth in their retirement savings that was an effective result of financial powerhouses engaging in exotic speculation. No one minded that their investments were not reflected by underlying assets..... until the market correction occurred. Then suddenly everyone thought they had lost something, even though it was never there in the first instance.

"So its OK for friends to seek self determination but not East Ukrainians" - East Ukrainians would love self determination, but unfortunately the Russian Federation decided to invade and occupy parts of Ukraine in order to destabilise Ukraine and create the conditions necessary to have a "frozen conflict" (like in Moldavia, Georgia, Dagestan etc) so that they can continue to attempt to control the population of Ukraine.

The Iraq/Syria conflict is a conflict between the Iranians and Saudis, with the USA et al attempting to minimise any disruption to the outflow of strategic resources from the region. Do note the current price war, where the Saudi's are continuing to produce vast amounts of crude despite a drop in global demand. Do also note how the Saudi's have an even lower rate for the USA market as they attempt to undercut and make uneconomic the new sources of oil production in the USA.

AJC:

12 Dec 2014 12:48:30pm

They executed Germans and Japanese as war criminals for performing these same acts of torture.

As history has shown, the leadership of Western nations such as the USA believe it's fine and dandy when they commit acts of horror. Whether they're in breach of international treaties, doesn't ever stop them.

JoeBloggs:

12 Dec 2014 2:22:36pm

"They executed Germans and Japanese as war criminals for performing these same acts of torture."

And ironically much of the witness evidence gathered against them, and many of the confessions themselves, were a direct result of torture performed by organisations like the British Prisoner of War Interrogation Section at the "London Cages", and by the USA OSS.

It is interesting how the head of the British Prisoner of War Interrogation Section got an OBE and was never charged with war crimes.

History shows the truth AJC..... even if you choose to be blinded by age old propaganda.

Stirrer:

xstephen:

12 Dec 2014 2:03:44pm

I never thought the torture was appropriate. However, in saying that the attacks on people just going about their day were horrific. If I was a person charged with protecting the freedom of my fellow citizens I may well have erred on the side of better to try prevent than pick up the pieces. I doubt if I would have gone the path of torture. But I also am not one who will my life on the line to protect others - such as the military or the police. I do not have to pick up the pieces after incidents occur. So I can appreciate how the actions could have been undertaken with the best of intent. The important thing is that decision makers review and set up for the future. And to me that means honouring commitments made to International Agreements/Law. If you don't think those are appropriate withdraw from them.

HJG:

Dove:

12 Dec 2014 3:50:56pm

After the US invaded Afghanistan, every foreigner was worth bounty money to the various militia, and were duly scooped up and handed over the US who assumed that meant they were guilty and started to go to work on them with all their pointy tools. After more than a few years years of misery, nearly all have been released. They didn't find anyone who helped out with 911. Or do you have a short memory?

Kassandra:

12 Dec 2014 2:17:29pm

I do not condone any of the methods reportedly used by the CIA in their "enhanced interrogation" methods.

That said, a few points should be made:The "torture" reported is small beer, in fact little of it is really torture. I have treated victims of torture and what is reported here is very mild in the scheme of things, although waterboarding comes close to what I would call torture.

The main purpose of torture is not to get information out of the victim but to terrify others who learn about it. Those administering it know the information is unreliable, but that's not why they are doing it. Weaker subjects will crack before anything is ever done to them (but will often claim afterwards to have been subjected to horrific tortures).

Maxx:

12 Dec 2014 2:44:20pm

This is an issue for the US and its citizens to resolve. Nothing printed here or indeed anything raised by Australia will have any influence. Any condemnation of the US by the Australian Government would be nothing short of hypocrisy. When 3,000 people have been killed in Sydney with the very real fear of further catastrophic events occurring we may consider enhanced interrogation as a useful first response.

Maxx:

12 Dec 2014 6:07:14pm

My comment refers to the post 9/11 period when a hard line response was required to settle the nerves of both the US intelligence agencies, the Government and the population. If enhanced interrogation formed part of that response then this was a decision of those in authority at the time. Had the event occurred in Australia, with our extremely limited resources compared to the US would we have acted any differently. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly for those of us who do not have to shoulder the responsibility.

I could conflate principle with political opportunism if we agree that principle in this case means unswerving commitment to ideological dogma. Principles in politics is a myth, political opportunism is democracy's 'black dog'.

Andrew Nichols:

pmg:

12 Dec 2014 5:24:16pm

The only unusual thing about this is it has been exposed. The US were torturing people routinely in Vietnam and it is well known they trained thousands of torturers at the School of the Americas when supporting military dictatorships through Central and South America. As for the statement "the US remains arguably the most benign superpower the world has seen". Tell that to the people of Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on and on. A more ludicrous and ignorant statement than calling the US a "benign superpower" is hard to imagine.

Yebiga:

There is nothing and there can never be anything which can justify torture

The sheer idiocy of it beggars belief

The information extracted via torture is contaminated. The victim and the torturer dehumanised - the psychological consequences for both is immeasurable

Those who sanctioned it have betrayed their country. They have perpetuated hatred and generational violence

Those who rationalise it are beneath contempt and the culture to which turned a blind eye - here in Australia - is sick to its very core

We should all feel ashamed amd recognised that we are on a slippery slope with our brutal refugee policy, our national security policy, our treatment of our own prisoners, our treatment of the homeless.... Eventually it will come to all of us unless we call those responsible to account and say STOP - never again.

Yebiga:

There is nothing and there can never be anything which can justify torture

The sheer idiocy of it beggars belief

The information extracted via torture is contaminated. The victim and the torturer dehumanised - the psychological consequences for both is immeasurable

Those who sanctioned it have betrayed their country. They have perpetuated hatred and generational violence

Those who rationalise it are beneath contempt and the culture to which turned a blind eye - here in Australia - is sick to its very core

We should all feel ashamed amd recognised that we are on a slippery slope with our brutal refugee policy, our national security policy, our treatment of our own prisoners, our treatment of the homeless.... Eventually it will come to all of us unless we call those responsible to account and say STOP - never again.

Reinhard:

12 Dec 2014 7:06:43pm

Bush and Cheney's approval of the use of "Enhanced Interrogation" wasn't their only crime against so-called "enemy combatants" , they also expanded the CIA's extraordinary rendition program that sent hundreds of others to third-party states with even more brutal methods. Many were not combatants at all, they were falsely accused by corrupt local officials and soldiers for a cash bounty. Bush and Cheney also did their best to drag the CIA further into their own quagmire with the Valerie Plame affair and Cheney's frequent visits to Langley to berate CIA analysts for not toeing the White house WMD line. When that intimidation didn't work they set up the "Office of Special Plans", a WMD spin directorate based in the White House.There was nothing at all exceptional about the Bush Administration